Standing Committee D

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Licensing Bill [Lords]

Clause 98 - Temporary event notice

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 383, in 
clause 98, page 55, line 28, at end insert 
 'except where the licensable activities involve folk music or folk dance performed in the vicinity of the premises in the open air,'.—[Mr. Moss.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Kim Howells: Thank you, Mr. Gale. You will be pleased to know that you have missed a series of adult discussions on the definition of folk music and so on. I was starting to wax lyrical, but you put me in my place during an aside when you said that we should not relive our youth this afternoon, so I shall not.
 I was discussing what precisely folk music is and whether it is amplified or not. I believe that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) took care in his amendment to insist that it covers only non-amplified music, but perhaps he will tell me in a moment. 
 The question of what constitutes folk music or dance may not occupy everyone's waking moments, but I hope that I can assure the Committee that it is one to which my mind has often wandered since our proceedings started. To that I can add Morris dancers, wassailers and so forth. The matter is important to them and to all of us who care about the cultural heritage of this country. 
 I hope that it has become abundantly clear from our lengthy and detailed debates in this House and another place that we are absolutely committed to providing an environment in which music of all sorts can thrive and we have made changes to the Bill to reflect that. Indeed, the whole Bill is designed to provide many more opportunities for musicians and other entertainers to perform. I have spent much time considering various options, some of which have involved defining in legislation various types and genres of performance, including folk music. Let me say straightaway that we have yet to find an answer and I doubt that we ever will, but I know what the hon. Gentleman is aiming at in the amendment. 
 Everyone has an idea of what constitutes folk music or dance. Some people's image is of a small troupe of musicians performing on traditional non-amplified instruments, usually on a golden summer's evening with a pint of scrumpy on the village green. That may be so on some occasions and perhaps in dozens of villages in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). No doubt he drinks 
 scrumpy in every one of them, which is not an easy task. 
 Many people classify Bob Dylan as a folk singer and I well remember the outrage among the folkier Bob Dylan fans when he appeared on stage with The Band playing amplified music. It caused outrage and almost riots, which showed that great passion can be generated and that music changes. The lyrics became no less relevant as folk lyrics or comments on contemporary society, but the form of music generated great controversy. Bob Dylan is even older than I am, but he can still fill Wembley arena several nights in succession. To be heard in such a place means that the music must often be very loud. 
 The great British folk band, Fairport Convention, has been holding wonderful festivals for several decades, which many thousands of people attend. If anyone is interested, this year's festival at Cropredy is taking place on 7, 8 and 9 August with tickets starting at £28 for early bookings.

Malcolm Moss: Without wishing to stop the Minister in full flow, I remind him that we are talking about temporary event notices. His Bill says that there can be a maximum of 500 people in attendance at such events. Perhaps that might help him.

Kim Howells: Luckily, it is only 500 people. If the hon. Gentleman's amendments had been accepted, it would have been 15,000.
 Defining this sort of activity is fraught with difficulty and provides grounds by itself for rejecting amendment No. 383. Furthermore, there are many other genres of music and dance that some people consider to be sufficiently quiet or harmless to justify special treatment. Some forms of jazz spring to mind. That is another reason why we cannot accept the amendment, and I hope that in view of that explanation the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw it.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to the Minister for his response so far. I am even more grateful for the fact that he started his response only two minutes before the termination of this morning's proceedings, because it enabled me to find in my filing system the letters that I have received from the English Folk Dance and Song Society, the president of the Morris Federation and the Men of Wight Morris Dancers. However difficult we find it to define folk music, there is no doubt that morris dancing is folk dance. Martin Davis, the bagman of the Men of Wight Morris Dancers, fears that the Bill will prevent the use of smaller venues and points out,
''this Christmas alone, the Morris Dancers have donated £125 to the Mountbatten Hospice''
 in my constituency. There is no doubt that the activity that they undertake is for profit. It is not an unprofitable activity. There is no doubt that it is a performance of dance, in relation to schedule 1(2). There is no doubt that it takes place in the presence of an audience and that its purpose, or one of its purposes, is entertaining that audience. 
 I very much hope that the Minister will think again about whether this activity has to be regulated. I welcome the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire because it would exempt this activity. I should like to spend a little more time on the matter because, as I said, we appear to be regulating morris dancing in open spaces—not necessarily only in pub car parks or in the vicinity of the sale of alcohol. The president of the Morris Federation, John Bacon, is concerned about the Bill's implications and how it will affect his members. He says that he supports the intent of the Bill, but the problem is that the 
''dance form and its music together with Mumming will all be illegal in public houses that do not have a licence''.
 The Minister shakes his head. Perhaps he would like to tell me why I am wrong. If he intervenes and convinces me that I am wrong, I will shut up. If he cannot do so, I will keep going until he tells me why I am wrong.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for enabling me to short-circuit the debate. I have had lengthy meetings with representatives of all the large morris, folk song and dance groups, including wassailers, storytellers and mummers. I took them through the Bill and they were much happier at the end of it than they were when we began. They were worried that they would suddenly have to apply for licences for performances that take place in public on the side of roads and so on. Such activities are not licensable. They will not be affected.
 The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the problem of when such performances take place as advertised events inside licensed premises. The representatives were worried about that and thought that they would suddenly have to find a lot of money to pay the landlords. They said that they might perform in 16 or 20 different venues on one of their special days. I asked them if such events were like Cowes week, for example, which was well known and had taken place for many years with a lot of advanced notice. It was pointed out to me that that rarely happens, although there are days in the year when morris dancers are known to perform at certain places. It is often a spontaneous performance and one that happens in different places at different times. As such, they would not be required to have a licence. 
 The hon. Gentleman is worried about the possibility that the dancers would not be allowed to perform outside ancient pubs or places where they may have performed previously. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) has a famous pub in his constituency, which has a long history of performing arts. It is called The Latchmere and is in Battersea Park road. If a morris troupe performed outside The Latchmere, I think that the police and the highways authorities would have an enormous amount to say about it—it also happens to be on a busy road junction. 
 Clearly, there will be occasions when it is appropriate for a spontaneous dance or performance to take place, or a tale to be told. On other occasions, it will not be, because it is an event that will have to be 
 properly notified to the authorities as the pavements may become blocked or there may be traffic problems. We must maintain flexibility. I envisage that in the majority of cases licences will not be required, but that occasionally permission will have to be sought and the licensing authority will have to be informed, as will the police, when an event is likely to encroach on a public highway or pavement and become a serious obstruction.

Roger Gale: Order. In case members of the Committee are in doubt, I have had to construe that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) had taken his seat and that the Minister was making a fresh speech, otherwise that was a long intervention. Do you wish to resume, Mr. Turner?

Andrew Turner: If I may, Mr. Gale. I noted with care some of the phrases that the Minister used and I hope that I did so correctly. He said that such events were not licensable on public roads.

Kim Howells: I was careful to say that the onus will lie on the local authority. If it considers that a series of performances, including dance, that take place on the road could constitute a problem, I have no doubt that it will want to discuss such matters with the troupe or group to clarify the situation and ensure that such performances are conducted within the law.

Andrew Turner: I accept that. The Minister said that those involved in a spontaneous performance would not usually be required to obtain a licence. He said that there will be occasions when it is appropriate for a spontaneous dance and performance and other occasions when it will not be appropriate, and in the majority of cases licences will not be required. I take that to mean that, notwithstanding the provisions in the Bill, the local authority will have discretion as to whether it seeks an application from groups such as those that have been in contact with us. If the Minister is happy with that, I am happy with it, although it may or may not provide security for the morris dancers and others who have been in touch with us. It relies on the good sense of local authorities and, regrettably, that commodity is somewhat rare in some local authorities.
 I realise that in many local authorities, good sense prevails 99 per cent. of the time. I am sure that it prevails 100 per cent. of the time in distinguished local authorities such as the one on which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) recently served. However, that is not always the case, as the hon. Member for North Devon perhaps knows, and as I certainly know. Local authorities can get a bit bureaucratic and say, ''Well, the Bill says that and it doesn't say anything about discretion.'' I have at last grasped what the Minister is trying to say. I am sorry that it has taken me until this stage in the Bill. He is saying that local authorities must exercise common sense.

Malcolm Moss: I welcome you back to the Committee, Mr. Gale.
 I listened with interest to what the Minister said. I am pleased that he met the people who have been lobbying us to explain the Bill's practical implications 
 for their activities. It is encouraging to hear that the majority of people were reassured and concluded that most of their activities would not require licences. Some activities would require entertainment licences, which presumably do not have to be applied for at present.

Kim Howells: I am not sure whether I understood the hon. Gentleman correctly. He knows that at present the licensee of a licensed premises must apply to a local authority for an entertainment licence if he or she wants to put on a musical event that involves more than two musicians. It is not true to say that people do not have to apply for such licences at present; they most certainly do.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that. I had not overlooked it, but the onus is on the pub landlord or the licensee who invites morris dancers on to his premises to make sure that he has the appropriate licence. The people who spoke to us were concerned about the implications for themselves, rather than for licence holders at establishments that they frequent.
 Will the Minister clarify the point about morris dancers instigating activities at the weekend? He alluded to the fact that they could visit half a dozen or even a dozen different establishments during their activities on, say, a Sunday. Some of those activities might well be within the curtilage of various pubs, in which case the entertainment licence would hopefully be taken care of by the licence holder. However, many activities would be on the village green or outside a pub. Are we categorically stating that if such an event were not advertised and were spontaneous, in the sense that it took place because the morris dancers happened to be in the village and decided to do something in that location, they would not be transgressing the law if they did not seek a licence? 
 The Minister spoke about morris dancing outside a pub in Battersea. I should have thought that common sense would prevail in most situations, and I cannot envisage such people dancing in a place that would cause havoc at one of the busiest crossroads in the metropolis, let alone on busy roads in some of our villages. The Minister said that if morris dancers were going to impinge on the public highway or cause difficulties, they would ''give notice''—I wrote those words down—to the police and perhaps the licensing authority. What does he mean by giving notice? Would that be for a temporary event activity, or would it be a matter of common sense that, as they might impinge on the highway, they should let the local police and licensing authority know that something was about to happen? 
 It would be helpful to know exactly what the Minister meant by giving notice. We used that as an argument way back when we discussed public entertainment licences. Rather than having to apply for licences, if people simply gave notice to the local police that they were holding an event, in most cases that should sort out the problem of the numbers likely to attend, the premises and so on. I should like some clarification, if possible. 
 Can the Minister say that, having explained the Bill and its implications to various groups, in the main they are now satisfied that the requirements are not too onerous and expensive, that they can live with them and that they will not curtail their activities, which are an important part of rural life? To go back to something that I said this morning, if we are to make new law, let us make sure that it improves the situation, rather than it imposing more regulation and making life more difficult. That will lead fewer people to say that the new law is too much hassle and they cannot be bothered with it. 
 I speak sincerely about the rural community. I know more about it than about the urban community. A great deal goes on in the rural community—we will come to that in the next series of amendments—and if the requirements of the Bill are too heavy, they will impinge on the day-to-day activities of many people in the rural environment, to the detriment of our culture and our society. 
 I tabled the amendment as a probing amendment to ascertain whether there had been contact with those who will be affected by the Bill. Such contact has indeed taken place, and I am grateful to the Minister for talking to those people. I know that in any event he has an open-door policy for anyone who wants to talk to him, and that is a good thing. I also sought clarification of the implications for various groups in the event of a non-advertised situation. 
 I go back to a topic that I mentioned in our discussions of schedule 1—the festival in the small town of Whittlesey in my constituency. It is called the straw bear festival and takes place in January. About 30 different groups from all parts of the country come to the town for the festival. Because it takes over the town, I am sure that the appropriate measures are taken with the police. People not only march through the town, but dance spontaneously outside pubs and in pub car parks. In that scenario, as long as the police are happy that the festival is properly organised and the appropriate fees are paid for extra policing and traffic direction, will the Minister give me an assurance that none of the morris-dancing teams that stop in various locations would need an entertainment licence or a temporary event notice prior to the event? I ask about that because the event is advertised and many people attend it. The teams stop and spontaneously perform different pieces around the town. I should be pleased to hear the Minister's response.

Kim Howells: I shall come to that. I am sure the Committee would want to know that it was this Government who ended the ban on dancing on Sunday, which had been in place for 200 years. So there is an upside, and we are not intending to crush culture in every respect.
 Amendment No. 383 would not exempt folk music and dance from the requirement for an authorisation under the temporary event notice system. Instead, it would remove the requirement for the person giving the temporary event notice to provide information about the licensable activities to be carried on at the event in question, where those activities involve 
''folk music or folk dance performed in the vicinity of the premises in the open air''.
 The only benefit to be derived from the amendment would be a negligible reduction in the effort required of the person giving the notice. That must be measured against the potential for larger-scale activities that could give rise to concerns relating to the licensing objectives. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire is right to point out that that would not always be the case, but he mentioned an example in his constituency. The amendment would deprive the police of the information necessary for them to judge the implications of an event for crime prevention. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked a number of specific questions. One of them was about morris dancers stopping off at locations that they may decide on as they go along. During my conversation with morris dancing groups, I was told that they drive around in their minibuses and when they see a good spot—it may be by a beautiful oak tree or where there are lots of people—they stop and dance. It would be extremely difficult, if not absurd, for them to have to seek some kind of permission to do that, and we are not saying that they should do so. 
 The onus will be on the premises user to ensure that he or she possesses the necessary authorisation for activities to be carried out. For example, that would apply to the festival in the village that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, the name of which I missed.

Malcolm Moss: Whittlesey.

Kim Howells: On the main evening of that festival, several thousand more people than usual may be in Whittlesey. Special permissions may have been sought for extensions, and events may be taking place at pubs and other places. It is important that the organisers of such events and the performers are well versed in what is required of them, that they are able to do those things well and that they have a good relationship with each other. As I tried to explain to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner), common sense is required, and I am sure that there have been examples of festivals that have been blighted by the lack of it, but I am unsure whether we can legislate for that in every respect. Often, sheer bloody-mindedness can damage an event that may be enjoyed by 75 per cent. of the town.
 When morris dancers decide to perform on a particular day, I am reliably informed by them that it is likely that they will alert the authorities to the vicinity where they will be, especially if their performance is likely to be a big event that draws lots of people. There is nothing to stop the local authority from licensing large stretches of public space such as streets, roads or greens so that entertainment can be performed there. During my conversation with the morris dancers, I discovered that many local authorities have done just that. There has never been a problem with that, and we do not envisage that any will arise in the future. Morris dancers who perform on roads may be providing regulated entertainment, but the expectation is that in many such cases the local authority will have obtained a premises licence, which will enable them to undertake those activities, and even to enjoy a drink.

Andrew Turner: I fear that the Minister is going back slightly towards his brief. He has been generous in expecting local authorities to exercise common sense, but now he is saying that he would expect the local authority to have obtained a premises licence. If a carnival is held in Ryde, is the local authority expected to obtain a premises licence for the route of the carnival—first, because there will be a marching band and, secondly, because the marching band will collect money and, therefore, be marching for profit?

Kim Howells: The local authority will almost certainly have ensured that it was acting within the law in giving permission for the carnival to take place. That may have involved several different actions. The hon. Gentleman will have to find out from the Isle of Wight authority precisely what it does to accommodate the carnival.
 Different demands are put on different areas. For example, Europe's biggest carnival, which takes place in Notting Hill, is an enormous event that involves many different actions by various authorities. The carnival that I go to every year is the Pewsey carnival in Wiltshire—a wonderful event. It is a much simpler business, but it is not easy to organise, either. For a start, it goes on for three days and sometimes even longer, but the local authorities are well used to it. As I have tried to explain to the Committee, we are not about to do anything to discourage local authorities from understanding the importance of such cultural events, not simply as an expression of cultural identity but because they are often economically important to the area.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful for the way in which the Minister is addressing the questions. He has been extremely helpful, not just to Opposition Members but to the many people who will read the Hansard report of our proceedings. He talked about the involvement of local authorities in small festivals. What legislation do they use to give permission? I do not see anything in the Bill. It is patently obvious that the local authority cannot license the highway for entertainment. Presumably, it can license only pieces of land that it owns, such as village greens. It seems extremely sensible to do that as the Minister explained, because it obviates the need for organisers to keep going back to the authority each time. I accept that, and I think that it is a very good point to get across.
 However, with the festival that I mentioned earlier, I am not sure which law the local authority uses for giving permission for activities to take place. Is there simply a general agreement that everything is fine, the police are involved, charges are paid and so on? Is there a licence? If so, what kind? There is no mention of such a licence in the Bill. Is it simply a gentleman's agreement, by which the authority says, ''You've gone through the right procedures, you've informed us, and we know the scale of the problem and what we are dealing with,'' and, because there is a good relationship with the organiser, everything will get sorted out?

Kim Howells: I know that the hon. Gentleman knows that such permission is not part of the Bill.
 Many laws must be examined and various permissions sought. For example, permission may be given to close entire streets to traffic for the Notting Hill carnival. I am trying at present to change the law slightly to allow film crews to use streets. Small changes to byelaws and codes of practice are often involved.
 On the specific question, which the hon. Gentleman is right to raise, local authorities do not have to obtain premises licences for public spaces, but we would certainly encourage them to do so where there is any demand by groups of dancers, folk singers, or anyone else who wanted to use that area. We think that that would be a good way to encourage cultural expressions named in the amendment. Local authorities will have a set procedure for carnivals or other big events, to ensure that streets can be closed to traffic. For example, most of Cardiff city centre is blocked off on international days. That is done six or 10 times a year and it seems to work well, although I am not sure how it is done, or what permissions are sought. 
 I have met the morris dancers, wassailers, and so forth, and they seem sensible people who have a good, productive relationship with the local authorities in whose areas they perform. I am confident that that will continue.

Roger Gale: Order. Before we continue, I must tell the Committee that I have deliberately allowed a wide-ranging debate because it is clear that there are many complex and interrelated issues here. It may therefore be helpful if I tell hon. Members that at the rate at which this debate is progressing, it is unlikely that there will be a stand part debate.

Malcolm Moss: I am grateful to you, Mr. Gale, for your ruling. I am also grateful to the Minister for his patient responses to our questions; he has dealt with all the matters we have raised. If there are any outstanding issues that he has overlooked, I am sure that he will write to us. On the basis of his co-operation and excellent explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move amendment No. 420, in
clause 98, page 55, line 38, after 'both,', insert— 
 '(ee) the name and address of the person having a controlling interest in the premises (''the owner''), if that person is not the premises user, along with a statement of the owner's agreement to the temporary event notice.'.
 I echo my hon. Friend's remarks on the Minister's response to the previous debate. 
 The amendment is intended to fill a void that is, perhaps, more important for temporary event notices than for premises applications—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. There is no requirement that the owner of the land on which the temporary event is to take place should even know, let alone assent to, the serving of the notice. That is not too awful a gap for a premises licence, because there is a period of consultation during which people may make objections and it is possible that the owner of the land might hear that somebody has sought a premises licence for his land. A temporary event notice, however, can be obtained at relatively short notice 
 and, although there is a period of consultation with the police, there is no period of public consultation. 
 It is conceivable that the local authority might not know the name and address of the landowner—indeed, the local authority might not need to inquire about it—so I propose that the name and address of the landowner should be included on the temporary event notice. One of the concerns that led to the legislation on raves, especially rural raves, was that such events were held on land without the assent and permission of the owner. I accept, however, that it would be a rather feeble rave that only had 499 people attending it. It was thought that the legislation on raves, which the Bill would replace, would enable the owner to take action more effectively, with the support of the police. However, if people decided to have an illegal party on land and wished to protect themselves, they could serve a temporary event notice. The police would be unable to take any action unless things were drawn to their attention, and only then if they felt that a crime were being committed. The landowner would know nothing about it until the drum kit arrived on the day in question. I hope that the Minister finds the amendment acceptable.

Kim Howells: The amendment looks sensible, but it does not have anything to do with licensing law.
 Part 5 of the Bill provides for a system by which licensable activities can be carried forward under the authority of a temporary event notice as permitted temporary activities. That system allows individuals to use premises for licensable activities under certain circumstances without obtaining a premises licence or a club premises certificate. Clause 98 describes, among other things, the information that must be provided by a person giving a temporary event notice. 
 Amendment No. 420 would require a temporary event notice to include the name and address of the person with a controlling interest in the premises—referred to as ''the owner''—if it is different from the premises user, and a statement of the owner's agreement to the temporary event notice. The contractual arrangement between the owner of any premises and the user is not a matter for licensing law. Licensing law is primarily concerned with the appropriate authority being given, whether by statute or a licensing authority, for the particular activity set out in clause 1. If a premises user were trespassing on the property affected, other legal solutions would be available, and are used. It is not for the licensing regime to resolve such disputes. I must therefore resist the amendment, as it takes the Bill into areas with which it is not, and should not be, concerned.

Andrew Turner: Can the Minister tell me whether the anti-rave legislation to which I referred earlier, and which I presume is being repealed by the Bill, contains a similar provision that requires the assent of the landowner?

Kim Howells: I am not aware that such a provision exists in law. As I said, there are ways in which action can be taken, but they involve laws that relate to the contractual arrangement that might exist between the user and the owner of the land.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for that answer, but I am not convinced that in this particular circumstance there is not a good case for requiring the assent of the landowner. There are two reasons for that. First, including the assent of the landowner would benefit the achievement of the licensing objectives—all of them, not merely the anti-crime and disorder objective. Secondly, the Minister has not been able to assure me that the statutes he proposes to repeal do not contain such provision. He has not said that they do contain such provision, but he has not assured me that they do not.
 I am sorry that the Minister feels that although this is a good amendment, it is the wrong one for the Bill. I will not press it, but it would be helpful to have a little more information. If I carry on talking, perhaps some information will strike the Minister. My concern relates to whether the existing rave legislation offers landowners protection that the expedited procedure does not.

Kim Howells: I am reliably informed that there is no requirement for the landowner's assent in current law.

Andrew Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 213, in
clause 98, page 56, line 9, at end insert— 
 '(9) Where it is proposed to use premises which are licensed for entertainment in accordance with paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 for the sale of alcohol at a function held by an organisation or branch in connection with the organisation's activities during a period not exceeding 24 hours an individual who is an officer of the relevant organisation may give a temporary event notice to the relevant licensing authority. 
 (10) In subsection (9) ''organisation'' means any society, club, institution, association of persons or organisation not carried on for purposes of private gain.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 219A, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 23, leave out 'or (4)' and insert 
 ', (4), (4A), (4B) or (5A)'.
 Amendment No. 344, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 28, leave out '50' and insert '25'.
 Amendment No. 382, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 28, leave out '50' and insert 'ten'.
 Amendment No. 326, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 33, leave out 'five' and insert 'twelve'.
 Amendment No. 214, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 34, at end insert 
 ', except where these notices are in accordance with section 98(9), when subsection (4A) shall apply.'.
 Amendment No. 327, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 35, leave out 'five' and insert 'twelve'.
 Amendment No. 215, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 40, at end insert 
 ', except where these notices are in accordance with section 98(9), when subsection (4A) shall apply.'.
 Amendment No. 217, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 40, at end insert 
 'except where these notices are in accordance with subsection (5A).'.
 Amendment No. 216, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 40, at end insert— 
 '(4A) This subsection applies if at least twelve temporary event notices for the sale of alcohol have already been given in the licensing area in any period of twelve months in respect of functions held by the same organisation or branch in accordance with section 98(9).'.
 Amendment No. 220, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 40, at end insert— 
 '(4B) This subsection applies if the relevant premises user— 
 (a) holds a personal licence, and 
 (b) does not hold a Wine Producer's Licence issued under H.M. Customs and Excise Notice 162: Cider and Wine Production.'.
 Amendment No. 218A, in 
clause 105, page 59, line 42, at end insert— 
 '(5A) This subsection applies if the relevant premises are a village hall, parish hall, church hall, community centre or similar building for which a premises licence for public entertainment is held, in which case temporary event notices for the sale of alcohol within the hours specified by the premises licence may be granted on up to twenty four occasions per annum to the officers of bona fide voluntary organisations.'.

Malcolm Moss: I seek your direction, Mr. Gale, in speaking to this long list of amendments. May I cover, say, three or four on the first attempt, and come back to speak to others later, or must I cover all the ground on all my amendments at once?

Roger Gale: The matter is straightforward. The amendments are grouped, and the hon. Gentleman may speak to them collectively or severally as he wishes, with the caveat that, as I told the Committee earlier, we are unlikely to have a clause stand part debate.

Malcolm Moss: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Gale.
 I shall speak first to amendment No. 213 and then to amendments Nos. 214 to 218A, which relate to clause 105. They are not exactly consequential amendments, but obviously they are related to amendment No. 213 and that is why they have been grouped together. 
 I shall set the scene by giving the current position with regard to what we might classify as temporary event notices. The Bill sets a limit of only five temporary event notices per premises per annum and that will have the effect on community buildings of replacing three flexible systems with just one provision, which is extremely limited, certainly in the eyes of many of those involved at community level. The Bill will replace, first, the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983, which gives 12 events per voluntary organisation a year, secondly, the facility for publicans to obtain occasional licences to run bars at other premises—that is useful at wedding receptions, private parties and other social events—and, finally, the facility, mentioned by the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), for an interval bar to be run under a theatre licence. Such theatre licences often come in handy, particularly when plays and shows are put on in community or village halls. 
 The Bill was to reduce the burden of regulation, but it will increase the burden for thousands of volunteers by forcing them to go down the route of applying for a premises licence for alcohol. That, of course, will have financial consequences. It has been put to me that a limit of five events a year will be financially disastrous, not only for community buildings—of course, they will lose booking income and already rely heavily on fundraising to cover their expenses—but for the wider voluntary sector and families on low incomes.

Kim Howells: If things are looking so disastrous for a community hall, what is to prevent it from taking out a premises licence, given that the costs would be very low and it would mean a lifetime licence for the building? Why would that be such a burden?

Malcolm Moss: That is an obvious point, which I will cover.
 Once the limit of five has been reached, where are the voluntary organisations to hold their fundraising and social events? In rural areas, a village hall is often the only community facility and if the events cannot take place, it will have a serious impact on local fundraising and community life. If there are not enough temporary event notices for all the needs of users, branches of national voluntary organisations such as the Red Cross and others that would use the facilities will lose out, as priority will obviously go to local organisations because of the limited availability. 
 The inability to host occasional private events would, in the opinion of some people, be the death knell for many of those halls. They are an important source of income that subsidises the hire charges for activities serving those on low incomes. I can think of many small town and village youth clubs that barely have two pounds to rub together. Many of the organisations attended by senior citizens also operate on extremely low budgets and do not have access to resources. That has a social impact on families on low incomes who cannot afford to go elsewhere, such as to a hotel or another hall, or provide free drink for family celebrations. 
 The provisions will affect most village halls and community centres. Action with Communities in Rural England—ACRE—provided me with some briefing and its national village halls survey showed that 34 per cent. of halls are used for amateur dramatics, 93 per cent. for private parties, 69 per cent. for wedding receptions, 64 per cent. for fundraising and social dances, 61 per cent. for fêtes or fairs and 40 per cent. for concerts.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman knows from earlier debates that we have exempted halls of that sort from having to pay fees for entertainment activities apart from for selling alcohol. I hope that as he delivers his litany of approaching disasters he remembers that we will not charge fees for the events in village halls to which he referred. There will be a cost only when alcohol is being sold to the public.

Malcolm Moss: I accept the Minister's direction. I am talking not about the fees, but about alcohol provision and sales at many of the functions held in community halls.
 An example was given to me of a village called Kimpton in Hertfordshire. It has a large main hall, which is used for amateur dramatics and old-time music hall three times a year, local wedding receptions and private parties, fundraising and social events and by a range of voluntary organisations, including the women's institute, young farmers clubs, the gardening club and the cricket club. It also jointly runs events such as the local fête. It needed at least 14 temporary notices some years ago and probably needs more now. 
 The Rawson Institute at Bolney in Sussex hosts five occasional events per annum, but it is planning a major refurbishment after which it hopes to be able to host amateur dramatics and local weddings. The income that they need to finance that expansion is part of the hall's business plan. It is factoring into its cost analysis the fact that it will be an improved facility that will be used by many other people. Many of the functions that it will hold will require alcohol to be available. 
 As the Minister rightly pointed out, village halls and community centres could obtain premises licences or set up social clubs to sell alcohol. In my village in Northamptonshire—I have only just moved into it—we are doing just that. There have been some healthy Friday nights out in the spanking new village hall. The village does not have a pub, so everybody comes and it helps to boost the social framework of the village and improve its inclusiveness. I thought it was of great benefit as I joined a new community. Local licensees, however, have complained because they see it taking business away from them, so the magistrates have said that, because temporary licences have been applied for on a regular basis, the hall is operating outside the spirit of the law even if it is following the letter of the law. The function has now closed down and the village community is forming a club to get round that problem. That will involve all sorts of bureaucracy, form filling and costs, but we have decided to go down that road nevertheless; that may not be an option for many village communities. Also, many of these institutions are voluntary, they may not want the responsibility for, or liability of, setting up these things and some key leaders may be required in a community to pick up and run with the ball. However, such people may not present themselves. Why should they, when there is a pub in the next village that they can go to? It is not an obvious solution simply to say, ''Well, they can obtain a premises licence or set up a pub.'' 
 Only 0.5 per cent. of the 8,900 village halls in England have chosen to obtain a justice's on-licence and a similar proportion have social clubs. A tiny minority of village halls have gone down that route and the Minister must ask himself why they have not chosen the more permanent facility. The answer is as I have described it. At present, the hirers of village halls take responsibility for fulfilling the licensing requirements and in most instances no alcohol is stored on the premises. That is what the volunteer trustees want. I have an example of trustees from a community centre in Bognor: they have dissuaded people from having a bar because they have come from the trade and they know that having a permanent 
 bar with alcohol stored on the premises invites regular break-ins.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a village in Hertfordshire: I think that it was Kimpton. He said that, in the past, it had 12 such events a year. I have worked out that under the present system that would cost the village £120. If it gets a premises licence, that will cost it £100, and it will have to pay £50 a year as an inspection charge to the local authority: that amounts to £150. At present, those 12 events depend upon it being able to persuade a local holder of a licence—who could be the pub owner from the next village or wherever about whom the hon. Gentleman was talking—to come along and take part in them. It does not have to keep alcohol on the premises. It does not have to do anything: it could have exactly the same arrangement, with the security of knowing that the landlord of that local pub could come along on 50 occasions a year and allow it to hold the sorts of event that he has been talking about on that premises.

Malcolm Moss: I do not dispute that, but the feedback that I am getting is that it will not be easy to find those personal licence holders. Why should the landlord of the local pub give up his time?

Kim Howells: That is illogical. At present, if such an event is going to take place, the landlord of the local pub has to be got hold of anyway so that he can provide a bar.

Malcolm Moss: I thought that I had covered that by saying that in many instances hirers of the village hall will bring in the outside bar with the licence holder to conduct it. That is not a problem, as that takes place anyway. We are talking about those voluntary functions and organisations that do not go down that road.
 I will continue as quickly as possible, after which the Minister can shoot me down as he sees fit. There is a feeling that personal licence holders who are willing to take on the training and responsibility—there are criminal penalties attached to taking on the role—will not come forward in great numbers. The alternative of a social club, which I mentioned in passing, has the disadvantage of not enabling alcohol sales at events at which those attending are not members. We have discussed that during the debate on the clause on clubs. That has also led to situations in which the clubs' needs have taken precedence over the charitable users and those are not, in their opinion, the correct solutions. 
 Another problem is that a designated premises supervisor would have to be found. That might work for groups such as the WI, but volunteer groups might not be happy to leave young farmers or wedding guests on their own while they are absent. The cost of an employee with a personal licence would need to be recovered by making sufficient sales, and the trustees would still have the additional financial and administrative burdens of employing staff, undertaking financial and stock control, and so 
 forth. A local publican might, as the Minister said, be willing to act as the designated premises supervisor, but local organisations might lose some fundraising income. Indeed, many villages have lost their pub and, as is the case in my village, that option is not available. 
 Police and local authorities want to be able to locate the person in charge at the premises—we have already discussed that—but a designated premises supervisor who is a volunteer or publican is less likely to be present than the hirer who made the application under the temporary event notice. 
 The amendments refer to voluntary organisations; the word ''organisation'' 
''means any society, club, institution, association of persons or organisation not carried on for purposes of private gain.''
 Amendment No. 213 states that where there is a licence for 
''entertainment in accordance with paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 for the sale of alcohol at a function held by an organisation . . . in connection with the organisation's activities during a period not exceeding 24 hours an individual who is an officer of the relevant organisation may give a temporary event notice to the relevant licensing authority.''
 That is linked with amendment No. 218A, which would add a subsection to clause 105, which itself deals with counter notices that must be issued if certain permitted limits are exceeded. The amendment would give a kind of exemption to village, parish and church halls, community centres and similar buildings 
''for which a premises licence for public entertainment is held, in which case temporary event notices for the sale of alcohol within the hours specified by the premises licence may be granted on up to twenty four occasions per annum to the officers of bona fide voluntary organisations.''
 That would raise the present number of occasions from five to 24 per year, but specifically for the voluntary organisations and certain kinds of halls. The amendment seeks to give a little more leeway and flexibility for the daily activities in our village and community halls, because people involved can see problems arising from the Bill. 
 I understand that a deputation from ACRE has met the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who was apparently sympathetic to them. However, little has happened as a result of that meeting.

Kim Howells: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that much happened as a consequence of that meeting? My right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life has not ceased to plague me about the issue ever since he met that organisation.

Malcolm Moss: I am pleased that the Minister has been plagued, but disappointed that he has not yielded to the arguments, because if the Minister for Rural Affairs can see that there are potential problems for the rural community, I should have thought that that was something that the Minister in his current capacity ought to take on board. We are attempting to find a way that will lead to greater flexibility. In the main, we are dealing with responsible people who volunteer, run organisations at the heart of village life, and keep the community together.
 There are rarely serious problems with any of the events that we are talking about in rural communities. All that is being requested is a little more leeway. Other amendments would increase the number of temporary event notices from five to 12. I support the argument that 12 is not enough, given that the halls are used on a regular basis by a host of different groups in villages and small towns. This group of amendments attempts to arrive at a number that is still within the remit and the context of temporary event notices, rather than licences. 
 The amendments would allow sufficient leeway for a village community to put on up to 24 events a year involving a bar—that is the point. That would cover most of the requirements envisaged by a body that represents councils in rural England, particularly smaller parish councils and their communities. Their argument is strong and I commend the amendments to the Committee.

Jim Knight: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 326 and 327. The temporary event notices are an important aspect of the Bill. The Government, rightly, describe them as light-touch regulation. Many people have contacted members of the Committee to express their concerns about premises licensing and the bureaucracy around it. It is difficult to find the right balance with temporary event notices. This morning we discussed the exceptionally generous capacity limit of 500. We talked about the 72-hour limit and the 24-hour gap that there must be between events. I have promoted all manner of events in all manner of strange places, and built venues from the floor upwards. I know all the various dangers that can be attached to even very temporary events.
 Temporary event notices are a generous, light-touch measure. However, I worry that five is not enough. I agree with much of what has just been said by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. I have also been contacted by ACRE, the organisation to which he referred, by other village hall committee representatives in my constituency and elsewhere in Dorset, and also by the regional representative of a theatre company that tours around rural venues, particularly in village halls, who had worries. They are all pleased and grateful that village halls will be exempt from paying a fee and that has satisfied many of their concerns. It will be standard practice for village halls and other community venues to acquire a premises licence, given that they do not have to pay for it. The issue is what is to be specified under the operating schedule, and in particular whether it will specify the serving of alcohol. 
 Village halls are a crucial part of the rural infrastructure. I am pleased to say that tomorrow I shall be opening a village hall in Weston on Portland that has been refurbished, thanks to lottery money that has come through the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I am sure that the residents of Weston are pleased about that.

Malcolm Moss: It is a Tory measure.

Jim Knight: It is amusing to hear the hon. Gentleman say that it is a Tory measure when
 money is given out; obviously, it is a Government measure if things go wrong. That is a strange irony, is it not?

Nick Harvey: The hon. Gentleman said that the lottery money came from a Department. Can he clarify what he means by that?

Jim Knight: The lottery is the responsibility of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, which oversees its operation. Given that Opposition Members are always willing to criticise the Government for their use of lottery money if things go wrong, it is incumbent on us to celebrate when things go right. I saw a Minister from the Department the other day in order to argue for the use of lottery money for the Weymouth and Portland Sailing Academy, but I shall not carry on talking about that, as it is fairly wide of the debate.
 Most village halls and community venues will acquire the premises licence but will not specify alcohol, because in most cases there will be no volunteer who wants to go through the training process and have the burden of responsibility, however it may be viewed, of being the premises supervisor. That would mean that they were responsible in law for any problems associated with the selling of alcohol in that venue. 
 Many people have expressed their concern about the limit of five events, given that premises can currently get 12 temporary permissions. It should be borne in mind that, as has been said, premises can also use the Theatres Act 1968 to serve interval drinks during some other events, so the total would be 12 events plus the use of the 1968 Act. The Bill proposes allowing five temporary event notices, lasting for a maximum of three days. In effect, it could be argued that the Bill is offering 15 days, as opposed to 12 plus the use of the 1968 Act. The two systems might therefore be regarded as being roughly equivalent. However, I should like the grouping of them together in three-day lumps to be unpicked, or the number of temporary event notices to be increased from five to 12. 
 My amendment probes the Government on whether they would go that far; whether they would say that there could be 12 lumps of three days; or whether we could consider putting together an amendment on Report that tries to find flexibility for the 15 days that are being offered, so that we can also get round some of the problems involving the 24-hour gap discussed this morning. There may be occasions on which premises could use the 15 days in lumps of four to get around that problem. 
 Such flexibility would solve many of the problems. Then it might be appropriate for the touring stage manager or producer of a touring theatre company, such as the one I met, to be the person named on the licence. The process might become part of the business of being the producer or stage manager of a touring theatre. Such theatres could then put on up to 15 temporary events when on tour and serve interval drinks; it would become part of the whole deal. That may get round the theatres' problem. 
 I simply ask my hon. Friend to give an idea of how flexible we can be with the use of the 15 days, and to 
 say whether he is willing to go as far as giving the 12 72-hour notices that I suggest in my amendment.

Nick Harvey: I support the hon. Member for South Dorset and his two amendments, which, of the 12 that we are considering, are the two that most merit support. He is right that five events in the course of a year is simply too few. I gather that amendments were tabled in another place to increase the figure of five to 30. That would be too many and the Government were right to resist such a proposal. As the Minister said this morning when we considered the restriction on the number of hours, we must reach a balance between the aspirations of those organising such events and the interests of the neighbours. If I were a neighbour, the idea that 30 such events were to take place in a year would be too much.
 I urge the Minister to reflect on whether five events are too few. The hon. Member for South Dorset is about right with his figure of 12. I was tempted to table two similar amendments suggesting 10 temporary event notices, but 12 is near 10. Unfortunately, I am guilty of a cock-up—although I should not have said that; it is unparliamentary. A drafting error has been made in amendment No. 382, which would reduce the number of times that a publican can hold an event from 50 to 10. That was not my intention. I wish to put the record straight and say that I do not support amendment No. 382, although, unfortunately, it is in my name. None the less, we should consider increasing the number of temporary event notices from five, and 12 is a sensible figure. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire focused a great deal on village halls, as did the hon. Member for South Dorset. They were right to do so, because village halls are important. However, the provisions are relevant to other venues too. For example, people in country houses hold charitable events several times a year. They charge for admission and for glasses of wine. They raise money for charities, which is worth while. I should have thought that five events was a tight limit in such circumstances, although I would not suggest going further than 12. That is quite far enough.

Kim Howells: The hon. Gentleman has probably forgotten that we have exempted charity garden fêtes.

Nick Harvey: I was not thinking about charity garden fêtes as such, but about indoor musical evenings and soirées.

Kim Howells: I apologise. I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. I should have said that I meant only entertainment events.

Nick Harvey: I am envisaging fundraising events where alcohol might be sold and fees are charged for the entertainment. The event is put on for profit, even if the profit goes to charity.

Jim Knight: The Dorset Summer Music Society, courtesy of Lady Digby at her house in Mintern, holds soirées and raises about £15,000 a year for charity.
 That is exactly the kind of event that would benefit from the amendment.

Nick Harvey: I know that some people hold different events at different times of year, the proceeds of which go to different charities in each case. It would be a pity if people were limited to as few as five such events.
 Amendment No. 218A, tabled by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, covers a village hall that holds only an entertainment licence, not an alcohol licence, but which wants to call in that mythical publican from the local village to sell alcohol. The suggestion that that could happen 24 times a year is sound, but if the neighbour had a perspective, I should have thought it desirable that the overall licence should contain alcohol provisions, so that the community had the full ability to make representations when the premises licence was due to be granted. 
 As the hon. Member for South Dorset correctly says, that would bring in all the problems of designated premises supervisors. If a village hall has an alcohol licence but all sorts of groups are going to make use of the hall during the course of the year, there may be no one individual who wants to be the designated premises supervisor for all the different uses, over which he or she might have differing levels of control. There is a problem there—but perhaps the Minister is about to enlighten me as to how it might be solved.

Kim Howells: There would be no need for the designated premises supervisor to be on the premises on each of those occasions.

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, because I was trying to work out how the system might operate. Can the Minister confirm that if a village or parish hall were to apply for a premises licence for both alcohol and entertainment, somebody such as the chairman of the hall committee, or the caretaker who lives in a house nearby and issues the key, could be the designated premises supervisor? If that is the case, when a local group wants to put on an event that entails the sale of alcohol, will it need a temporary event notice or will that activity be covered by the premises licence?

Kim Howells: It is my understanding that it will be covered, and if the designated premises supervisor cannot be present on the premises when alcohol is being sold, it is their responsibility to have someone nominated and named who will be responsible for that occasion; that will often be the person who applied for the use of the hall—the secretary of the chrysanthemum association, let us say.

Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, as it sounds sensible to me. Presumably that is the basis of the reply that he has been giving to his colleague the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life concerning representations from concerned organisations, because what he has just outlined should be a workable solution. Amendment No. 218A might therefore be unnecessary, but I will leave the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire to make his own decision about that.
 In conclusion, I simply urge the Minister, in the same spirit of reasonableness that he showed in this morning's sitting over the 72-hour limit, to reconsider the limit of five occasions per year. I do not want the number to be dramatically increased, but there is a strong argument for a modest increase.

Mark Hoban: I want to raise some concerns that have been expressed to me about the number of temporary event notices that can be applied for for a particular set of premises.
 I shall return to the correspondence that I received from the regional branch of CAMRA. Its secretary, Pat O'Neill, is clearly a pillar of the local community; it appears that he runs a series of events for different people. His concern is that a limit of five events per year for a set of premises could restrict some of the events that he runs on behalf of charities and other groups, and he cites events such as a jazz and real ale evening that he organised for the mayor of Eastleigh. 
 I do not think that Mr. O'Neill is as fully conversant with the workings of the Theatres Act as the hon. Member for South Dorset, because he was concerned that the real ale bars that he puts on to accompany occasional performances of the local theatre club might be ruled out. I am unsure whether theatre clubs fall within the Theatres Act, but I might discuss that with the hon. Member for South Dorset later, so that I can shed some more light on the matter for Mr. O'Neill. 
 Schools are the other group concerned about the limit on the number of temporary event notices that can be issued. Over the past few days I have been talking to local headmasters. A number of the schools in my constituency put on more than 12 fundraising concerts a year, and they are concerned that if they need to apply for temporary event notices for those concerts, their activities might be restricted. They are licensable activities because they are intended to raise money—to make a profit—and therefore they would require a temporary event notice.

Kim Howells: I remind the hon. Gentleman that an occasion becomes licensable when anybody from the general public can pay to come to the event. That is different from an occasion that parents and relatives attend to see their loved ones performing a play inside a school.

Mark Hoban: Indeed. I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of the discussion we had earlier. However, my point still applies in many instances. I have certainly attended fundraising events at local schools to which people from the rest of the constituency were invited. It was not restricted to parents or friends; the general public were there. Putting on performances to support local charities is good for schools that are trying to develop their musical resources and the children's musical skills, and enables them to mesh with the local community.
 It is not just groups such as CAMRA or village halls that are concerned about the number of events that can be run, but schools and other community organisations that make their premises available to other groups to raise funds on their behalf. I strongly argue that we therefore need to lift the limit from five; 
 in fact, I support the amendment that suggests a limit of 12. It would be useful to learn from the people who promote events in such venues what limit would be sensible and would not cause undue nuisance to neighbours.

David Crausby: I support the intentions of my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset, not just because they are in the interests of village halls but because they are in the interests of members clubs. Members clubs are the equivalent of village halls in towns and cities, and they often hold small events. They currently enjoy an allowance of 12 events, under what is widely known as the Little Ship rule, because the Little Ship club went to court in defence of such events. The rule is that clubs can hold 12 events. They can get round the rule by using a member to sponsor events outside the club, but that is not always appropriate. The Committee of Registered Clubs Associations, Labour clubs, the British Legion and—I am told—Conservative clubs are in favour of maintaining the status quo figure of 12 that they enjoy at present.

Andrew Turner: I am beginning to think that I should have mentioned earlier that I am a vice-president of the Association of Conservative Clubs. [Hon. Members: ''Now he tells us.''] I apologise for not mentioning that earlier—but I have no financial interests in that organisation.

Malcolm Moss: Why tell us now?

Andrew Turner: I am just too honest.
 I should like to pursue a number of issues—I am taking advantage of your remark that this debate might take the place of a stand part debate, Mr. Gale. First, I thank the Minister for the research that was undertaken on his behalf into the future of the cricket match on Bramble bank. I am pleased to hear that cricket matches taking place below the high tide mark are now exempt from regulation under the Bill—

Kim Howells: We have not checked that.

Andrew Turner: But they are exempt now.
 One of the things that we have discovered in examining temporary event notices is that events such as Cowes week, Henley, Wimbledon and so on, which used to be part of a progression of events around the country, have outgrown their origins and have been taken over to some extent by specialists, who have extended their period of operation. Whereas previously one would progress gently from Henley to Wimbledon to Cowes to the glorious 12th—not necessarily in that order—nowadays, with the exception of the latter, there are no time limits on the activities that used to be undertaken within a limited period. 
 I welcome the Minister's emphasis on the use of premises licenses and variations on those. He will be pleased to hear that I have now discovered the clause that deals with variations—and what is more I have read it, or at least some of it. I could now tell Mr. Troup, of whom we spoke this morning, that running many events during Cowes week, and in the weeks and months around that time, should not be too much of a 
 burden for him. However, I do not want to go too far down that line, because that is for the Minister to say. 
 Clauses 34(5) and 18(5) deal with the time limits on applications for varying premises licences. The Minister has been helpful in allowing me time to find the relevant clauses. Will the regulations made under clause 18 specify the same time limits for variations as those made under provisions elsewhere, or will they be different? I should be satisfied if those specify different time limits, because that would enable people to deal with quick, rapid, or urgent variations to the basic premises licence. That would greatly reduce my criticism of the limit on the number of temporary event notices; it might also eliminate my criticism of the prevention of back-to-back notices. 
 We are looking for a fast-track but scrutinised process. I accept that a temporary event notice has drawbacks, because it is not open to public scrutiny. However, the premises licence process may be too long. If the Minister could offer us a fast-track but scrutinised process, that might satisfy some of the people who have made representations to me about the number of temporary event notices. 
 I am grateful for what the Minister said about folk dance and folk songs. For the record, the English Folk Dance and Song Society says that it not only represents morris dancing, but also 
''clog, molly, longsword, rapper, Appalachian and other international styles'',
 although how an English society can represent ''other international styles'' is not clear. It also has something called ''pace egging''. Perhaps the Minister will help me later by explaining what that means. 
 There is something attractive in what the hon. Member for South Dorset said about his amendments. Instead of setting an upper limit on the number of notices, whether that be five or 50, perhaps the Minister could consider setting an upper limit on the aggregate hours for which a notice may be applicable. If he did so, it would take care of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire. In my experience, most village halls do not go in for four-day events. They go in for short events—in some cases, the shorter, the better—

Kevan Jones: Especially with morris dancing.

Andrew Turner: I want the hon. Gentleman's deprecatory remarks about morris dancing put on record.
 Will the Minister consider aggregating events into a number of hours and perhaps having a number of licences as well?

Kim Howells: That is one of the options that we are examining.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful, and will sit down.

Mark Field: Many of us have talked about rural areas, but I have a concern that also applies in what we
 might call urban villages, where there are often few available premises, which may include the local school or church hall. I am thinking of places such as Soho or Covent Garden, where there are few public areas and few opportunities open to a range of community groups. One concern is that all too often the premises have been utilised in recent years without any regard to licensing provisions. The Bill will alert not only the owners of those halls but a range of groups to the fact that strict new laws are in place. There is inevitably a risk that the Bill will be enforced to a large extent by the local licensing authority.

Kim Howells: I appreciate entirely what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope that he understands that the laws are very strict now. If, however, the local authorities or the police have chosen not to implement or enforce them for whatever reason, it is difficult to know what Government can do about it when they attempt to clarify and improve the law and make it less burdensome bureaucratically, but I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Mark Field: The Bill has a consolidating element that is to be supported; it is designed to clarify the licensing rules. A blind eye may have been turned, or many bodies may have innocently been unaware that there are licensing implications to arrangements that have been in place in the past. As a result, it is sensible to consider the issue rather than assume that authorities will continue to turn a blind eye as to whether five, 10 or 15 events take place under a temporary event arrangement, or will wink once the five have been reached and suggest that the premises do not make any slips for the next three or four months until the new year. With that in mind, it seems sensible that at least some thought is given to flexibility. Given the paucity of available premises, both in city complexes such as the one that I represent and in much more far-flung rural areas, it would be sensible to increase the number of events from five to 12—that is, to one per month.
 Conservative Members agree with the idea of codifying the arrangements for temporary licences; that is a sensible way forward. Clearly, the risk is that the provisions will become more bureaucratic, in that to a large extent many of the rules have been ignored. I hope that there will be at least some flexibility, or that the Minister, in so far as he is unwilling to take on board many of the amendments, will give a commitment to consider the matter on Report, when there has been an opportunity for further consultation. Otherwise, I hope that we can return to the matter in a few years if it is evident that many community groups are being deprived of premises because of a strict interpretation of the rules that we put in place.

Kim Howells: This has been an excellent debate and I have learned a good deal from it. Many excellent questions were asked, not least by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and others. For the record, in my initial or a subsequent intervention on the hon. Gentleman's speech, I mentioned 50 occasions when I meant five. I am glad to say that he did not come down on me like a ton of bricks about that.
 We have got to the subject of how it might be possible for a village hall or similar community centre 
 to take advantage of the new division in licensing arrangements between a premises licence and a personal licence. Whether it would be useful to the Committee, I do not know, but I will run through the situation. I explained some of it to the hon. Member for North Devon who asked about it. 
 First of all, to put everybody's mind at rest, I want to confirm that due to the quality of the debate and the fact that I have spoken on many occasions to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Urban Quality of Life, I have decided to look again at the limits. From our debate, I think that there are some serious problems with the number that we have proposed. I acknowledge that, during the debate, members of the Committee have understood clearly why there must be a limit. We must be careful where the limit is set because of the concerns that we must have for people who live near the premises in question. 
 I want to talk about what happens with community buildings. I was interested when the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire went through the list of events that take place because it occurred to me while he was speaking that there is a charge for many of them at the moment. Community buildings can be used for some of the activities that he mentioned. They would need a theatre licence to put on plays. They would need a cinema licence to show films—nobody has mentioned that so far, but that is an increasingly important function. 
 The hon. Gentleman mentioned in passing, but it was an important mention, that the landlord down the road might not be too pleased about the fact that something might happen at the village centre. He described the way in which the village was rediscovering its sense of community by improving what goes on at the village hall, but the landlord may well be losing customers as a consequence. The trade has come to us about that on several occasions—there is a trade beyond CAMRA. As my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan), who is well versed in those matters knows, the trade has become worried about what might happen if there is not a clear limit on the number of occasions when bars—run with very few overheads—can be set up and that they will take business away from them. That is an important point. 
 With digital technology, films that are on the cinema circuit are being shown with digital projectors. It is an exciting development because it would certainly help to revive live cinema, not only in rural areas but in urban areas as well. [Interruption.] I should correct the phrase ''live cinema'' with the ''exhibition of film''. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) rightly pulled me up on that. There are technologies now that will enable satellite broadcasts of films in digital form to be projected within village halls. That is exciting, but it also troubles us. As I am sure that the Committee can imagine, the Cinema Exhibitors Association is worried that its business might be affected.

Andrew Turner: That is indeed exciting, but I wonder whether there is a technical distinction between the
 exhibition of a film and the wide-screen television that we discussed earlier.

Kim Howells: I shall not wander down that road at the moment, but I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We are discussing the village halls and communities that were referred to initially by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, and that is what I want to concentrate on.

Malcolm Moss: The thrust of my argument was that village halls and community groups recognise that they must have a premises licence for entertainment, but it is the alcohol side of such matters on which they want to focus. I thought that the Minister was saying that I was not aware that there was a cost involved.

Kim Howells: No, no. I am sure that anyone who has suffered these Committee sittings as long as the hon. Gentleman has will know that a cost is involved. He is right to reflect the worries of the various associations that represent village halls. Costs are attached to all the other events that take place in village halls, and such events may have alcohol associated with them.
 My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset mentioned the putting on of plays. It is not only the Theatres Act that allows alcohol to be sold during an interval. The selling of alcohol just before or just after a play falls into a different category. A bureaucratic system exists at present and we want to simplify it a great deal under the Bill. Most importantly, such premises may need a public entertainment licence, which can be expensive in some respects, especially in the middle of a town or a city, where the authorities may not be as lenient in granting entertainment licences as they would with a rural village hall. 
 That leads us to the issue raised by the hon. Member for North Devon, who asked whether it would be possible for a village hall to have a premises licence. A village hall could certainly do that. The committee could nominate someone, or someone could be elected, who would then undertake training to enable him or her to gain the necessary qualification. We shall discuss that matter in subsequent clauses; it is not an onerous task. Many people have organised such events on numerous occasions, and I am sure that they could slip easily into that role. A designated premises supervisor, such as the committee secretary, would need to be specified. That person must be a personal licence holder, but does not have to always be present at the events. That is important because, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire reminded us, such people are often volunteers. They can give up so much time, but they cannot be expected to be at events each night of the week. 
 Many village hall committees might care to consider such a development. It may be a way forward. The hon. Member for North Devon asked whether a caretaker who lived nearby could be a designated premises supervisor. Yes, he or she could. There is nothing to stop them. It might be possible to persuade local publicans to fulfil the role, as they do for occasional permissions now. 
 The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked about wedding receptions and private parties at 
 village halls. It is likely that in many cases the alcohol would be given away, so no premises licence or temporary event notice would be required at such events. I assume that the hon. Gentleman meant that sometimes the free drink ends—

Malcolm Moss: And a pay bar opens.

Kim Howells: Then, of course, it becomes a different matter.
 As for the general question about community halls, it is important to remember that temporary event notices do not cover the sale of alcohol alone. They cover music, dancing and plays, and the current cost of the various permissions for such activities can be extremely high. If the premises have a premises licence, the costs will fall dramatically. The Government have a duty, when we debate on the Floor of the House or in Committee, and in debates in another place, to ensure that the committees know about such matters, because that could be a great help to them. We have always said that we shall exempt such premises from the cost of an entertainment fee, but certainly not for the sale of alcohol. 
 I have heard several suggestions about raising the limit to 12 occasions, or perhaps 10. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to specifying the total number of hours, which is something that I have been considering carefully; for example, we could decide on five times 72 hours in a year. We shall have a good deal of flexibility about the number of occasions that that could cover, but we need to give local residents the comfort of knowing that there will not be unlimited hours, and that we can divvy them up so as to accommodate the needs of schools, village halls and so on. I give an undertaking that I shall take away the information that I have received during the debate and from elsewhere, and I shall try to come back on Report with a helpful proposition.

Malcolm Moss: Again, we are grateful to the Minister for the way in which he has dealt with the issues outlined in the amendments. We take some comfort from his promise that he will have another look at the matter, particularly the time limits, with a view to introducing some Government proposals on Report. The key question concerns the number of occasions when the temporary event notices can be given, and Action with Communities in Rural England says that under the current legislation—the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983—the number is about 12 a year. That figure stretches many communities already, so ACRE is looking for a higher number, such as 24—as was suggested in one of my amendments. That figure may be too high, but something higher than the current number is certainly needed for current use. I think that the Minister has come to accept that five is too few.
 Clause 105(4) refers to ''five temporary event notices'' having been given for the premises. If they have already been allocated to a village hall, a limit has been set, but ACRE does not believe that people can work within those confines. We hear what the Minister says about a premises licence for alcohol, a personal 
 licence and a designated premises supervisor. We accept that such arrangements are possible, and are available to organisations under the Bill, but the fact of life is that there are often only one or two key players in a village community, and they cannot do everything. There are repercussions for taking on such roles in respect of legality, and if the law is not followed, there can be legal penalties and implications. The message that we are getting from the people involved is that there will not be a queue of people lining up to take on those responsibilities, because they do not want the hassle. 
 The Minister talked sensibly about the need for balance, and we agree with him. However, the point being made to us is that 12, or perhaps a few more, events might already be taking place in many community and village halls each year. They cause no disturbance or hassle, so we will not be adding to the problems in great measure if we increase the number to more than 12—even to 24. I hear what the Minister says about that, and the fact that he is considering having a moveable feast using combinations of 72 hours. That would be helpful. 
 In the light of the Minister's assurances, I am happy not to press the amendments to which I have already spoken—but I still have not spoken to amendment No. 220, and I shall now move on to that. I wanted to keep it separate because the amendments that we have just discussed are complex and it might have got in the way. It would amend clause 105, and states: 
''at end insert—
'(4B) This subsection applies if the relevant premises user—
(a) holds a personal licence, and
(b) does not hold a Wine Producer's Licence issued under H. M. Customs and Excise Notice 162: Cider and Wine Production.' ''
 In some people's view, the current wording of the Bill jeopardises the ability of UK-based wine and cider producers to retail their products at rural events, county shows and—most importantly, perhaps—farmers markets, which are very successful, are on the increase and are being encouraged by the Government, especially by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Figures suggest that a substantial minority of wine and cider producers may be forced to cease trading if the Bill proceeds without amendment. 
 As well as providing their traditional role, farmers markets now provide a platform for many small indigenous wine growers in this country to market their produce. The Curry report identified the need to support the spread and penetration of the network as an important step towards improving the prospects for UK growers. That is particularly pertinent to the UK wine trade. The fractured nature of the wine market makes it difficult to develop and market a substantial brand identity that might attract interest from the supermarkets and off-licences. Members of the Wine and Spirit Association have adjusted sales strategies as a result and, in anticipation of Government support, have established networks of farmers markets up and down the country. The Curry report recognised the importance of such markets in providing producers with the necessary control, as well as freedom and 
 security for investment planning not afforded by other distribution methods. 
 The chief concern is that few of the premises and venues used for farmers markets will qualify for a licence under the Bill. The Government response thus far has been that landowners wanting to obtain a licence will do so, in accordance with market forces. However, that misinterprets the nature of the markets and the produce sold from them. Wine growers are a small percentage of the make-up of markets, and experience demonstrates that there are likely to be only a handful of growers at each event. 
 The Bill stipulates that alcohol sales can take place only at a venue with a premises licence and under the authorisation of a designated premises supervisor; that person must, of course, be a personal licence holder and might also need temporary event provision. Current practice is that the organiser of a farmers market requests a local licensee to secure a temporary event notice from the licensing magistrate. 
 Farmers markets and similar events happen on an occasional basis and are primarily concerned with the sale of agricultural produce. The sale of alcohol is incidental to the main business at such events, and the infrequent nature of them, coupled with the difficulties in establishing clear long-term operating conditions, and a complete lack of experience in alcohol retail by the organisers, would disqualify such venues from obtaining a full premises licence under the Bill. In the unlikely event of the organiser's obtaining a licence, despite their lack of knowledge of the licensing trade and the fact that they take no active role in the retail sale of alcohol, it seems likely that economic considerations would preclude applications. Because of the incidental nature of the retail of alcohol at such events, the charges imposed on each retailer present would be prohibitive. 
 Whilst all growers will seek to obtain a licence and many apply for a premises licence to sell their wares at the farm gate—on their own premises, or at its boundary—their vending will be limited to merely 50 unlicensed events per year. Many growers attend two or three events each week, so their licence could well have expired by early summer, which would cause their operations to cease. Furthermore, the Bill goes on to restrict such temporary events in one unlicensed premises to only five per year. That would preclude growers from attending weekly or monthly events, where a brand presence might be developed and positive consumer relations built upon. 
 Mr. David Westphal of Penshurst Vineyard is a classic example of a grower whose needs are not met by the new legislation. If this Bill is enacted as it is drafted, he will give up wine making, as will many others in his sector. He attends 60 to 80 events each year, including many small village fêtes. At some of those—for example, the Yalding show and the Whitstable oyster festival—he is the only wine seller in attendance. It is his belief that those events will not obtain a full premises licence and he would not have enough temporary notices to cover them as well as all 
 the other events that he attends. He derives the vast majority of his wine income from such rural activities. 
 Although it is paramount to recognise the importance of ensuring that all alcohol sales are made under an appropriate regime and in a responsible manner, this amendment provides a compromise that would allow wine and cider makers to retail their produce at important local events without diluting the objective of the Bill to restrict the unauthorised sale of alcohol. 
 Her Majesty's Customs and Excise requires that all producers of wine and cider obtain a producers notice under notice 162. Failure to abide by the terms of that notice results in a substantial fine and forfeiture of the notice, which ultimately results in the loss of livelihood. The Bill imposes a range of sanctions on personal licence holders who breach the licensing objectives and conditions. Therefore, individuals who will have obtained the aforementioned notice and the personal licence have satisfied two separate agencies of Government that they are fit and proper persons to authorise the sale of alcohol. It is the belief on the Opposition Benches, and among many eminent outside bodies, that adopting this amendment and permitting a restricted number of individuals to continue to retail their produce will carry no threat to the main objectives as stated in the Bill.

Roger Gale: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that we are still discussing the lead amendment.

Kim Howells: I congratulate whoever organised the farmers' market lobby for doing a very good job. It arose from nowhere and swept enormous amounts of literature on to the desks of hon. Members. I have had to answer all the letters that that has generated. I also congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire on moving the amendment in the way that he has, because it expresses almost all of that lobby's reservations about the proposed legislation.
 It is clear that amendment No. 220 does not have the effect that its author intended because clause 105 requires the licensing authority to issue a counter notice which, in effect overrides a temporary event notice, if any of its subsections (2), (3) and (4) apply. 
 Amendment No. 219A would add subsections (4A), (4B) and (5A) to those. Thus, if subsection (4B) applies, as described in amendment No. 220, a counter notice must be issued. Subsections (2), (3) and (4) all contain a maximum limit on the number of notices, as do the earlier amendments that we discussed in the group. Amendment No. 220, which would insert subsection (4B), contains no limit, maximum or otherwise, and accordingly, with no limits of the kind specified in the earlier subsections, it would apply in every case in which the two criteria it describes were met. That is the technical problem with amendment No. 220. 
 I will also tackle the important issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. I am in favour of farmers' markets—they are a good way forward and are brilliant for tourism. I know of a hotel on the Isle of Wight, for example, which has transformed itself and part of the local micro-economy because the proprietor of the 
 hotel decided to draw all her produce from local farms: the farmers have suddenly seen that there is another way of marketing their produce. That is tremendously encouraging. 
 The effect of the amendments would be that any personal licence holder who did not also hold a wine producer's licence, which would be the vast majority of personal licence holders, could give no temporary event notices in any calendar year. If such a personal licence holder gave even one temporary event notice, the licensing authority would be obliged to issue a counter notice ruling it out. That would be a catastrophe for the pub industry and more than 100,000 licensees would automatically be barred from their existing right to sell alcohol at events away from their pubs. At least another 45,000 potential personal licence holders who presently hold off-licences would also lose their new right in the Bill to give temporary event notices. The proposed provision also completely conflicts with the provisions of subsection (2) of clause 105. 
 I may be wrong, but I do not believe that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire intended to inflict such damage on the main parts of the industry. However, that would be the effect and I assume that on that basis alone he will want to reconsider amendment No. 220. 
 However, it is obvious that the intention of the amendment was to aid retailers of alcohol at farmers' markets.

Malcolm Moss: Specifically to help not only the retail of alcohol at farmers' markets but the retail of wine that is produced by the growers themselves, although obviously there are not many of those.

Kim Howells: I accept that. I am afraid that there is a great deal of misinformation about how such sales take place and this is a useful opportunity to correct that. The reforms will not adversely affect the holding of farmers' markets and will enable small wine producers to sell their produce much more easily than at present. The Licensing Bill removes some of the eligibility restrictions in current licensing law and provides flexibility for those seeking permission to sell alcohol.
 There is a great deal of nonsense being propagated, suggesting that the Bill is more restrictive for retailers at farmers' markets than the existing law. In fact, the sale of alcohol at farmers' markets is already licensable under existing law. Indeed, the law is so restrictive that most retailers are unable to sell at such markets in their own right unless they obtain a full justices' off-licence on every occasion. That means that, on every occasion, they need to obtain a licence equivalent to those obtained, for example, by supermarkets. 
 In general, to sell alcohol occasionally away from normal licensed premises, an individual must hold a full justices' on-licence. That licence permits the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, and is the one held by most pub landlords. They, and only they, may also obtain what is called an ''occasional licence''. Most retailers of alcohol at farmers' markets—small 
 brewers and wine producers—do not hold such on-licences and thus do not qualify for occasional licences. Those who do not hold a justices' on-licence but satisfy the eligibility criteria can make an application for what is called an ''occasional permission'', which allows the sale of alcohol at an event, such as a farmers' market, for a period of up to 24 hours. That is granted under the provisions of the Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983. A maximum of only 12 such occasional permissions are allowed in a single year. However, the current law only allows non-profit making organisations to apply for and obtain occasional permissions. That therefore rules out virtually all retailers of alcohol at farmers' markets. 
 At present, retailers of wine or beer at farmers' markets must either obtain a full justices' off-licence on every occasion on which they want to sell alcohol, or rely on a friendly justices' licence holder, such as a local pub landlord, to apply to the courts on their behalf for an occasional licence, which is distinct from an occasional permission. However, under an occasional licence, the pub landlord would be responsible for the sale of alcohol at the market and he would be held accountable if there were any problems, even if he were not present at the event. That is a serious risk for a pub landlord; he may put his own livelihood in jeopardy. It is hard to imagine a more restrictive arrangement than how the law deals with farmers' markets at present. This is a good time for a change. 
 The Licensing Bill would make it easier for individuals, such as wine producers, to sell alcohol at temporary events. Under the new system, personal licence holders could give up to 50 temporary event notices each year to carry on licensable activities, such as the sale of alcohol. Any individual who can meet the tests can obtain a personal licence; they do not have to work in a pub or off-licence. Moreover, each temporary event could last for up to 72 hours—we have just debated how we might make things as effective as possible for such events. That offers an individual the opportunity to sell alcohol for a maximum of 150 days in every calendar year. That is a significantly more flexible arrangement than currently exists. 
 The bureaucracy attached to permitted temporary activities is extremely light touch. Under the Bill, a notice would be given to the relevant licensing authority and copied to the police. The police may object only on grounds relating to the crime prevention objective. The light-touch approach must be balanced against proper protections and safeguards. Accordingly, a maximum permitted limit of 50 notices each year may be given by personal licence holders, five may be given by non-personal licence holders, and notices for the same premises may only be given five times a year. Further limitations include the period of such events—72 hours—the 24-hour gap between events and the limit of 499 people attending at any time. 
 In addition to the flexible temporary event arrangements, the owners of the property on which a farmers' market takes place, or indeed the market 
 organisers, should obtain a premises licence authorising the sale of alcohol. A premises licence authorising the sale of alcohol on the premises would specify a designated premises supervisor; that person must be a personal licence holder, who may sell or otherwise authorise the sale of alcohol. In such circumstances, there would be no need for a wine or cider producer to give a temporary event notice to sell wine at a market at a premises. If the designated premises supervisor authorised the stall holder to sell alcohol, there would be no need for a personal licence. Where markets are held regularly in the same place, it would be in the interests of the owners and organisers to apply for a premises licence.

Malcolm Moss: That is extremely helpful.
 On the example of a regular location being used for farmers' markets, in my own area the local authority would allow the market to be held in a marketplace or a particular zone in the town or village on a regular basis. If the local authority is responsible for that space, how does it go about issuing a premises licence? How is the area delineated if it is not a building but space? Would the organiser of the farmers' market be responsible for organising the premises licence for the various locations it visits?

Kim Howells: I know of nothing to prevent a local authority from having that space licensed for the sale of alcohol. In response to the question from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight about morris dancers, I answered similarly that there is no reason why the local authority cannot apply to the licensing authority. As Members can see, it is useful to have a split between the entity known as the licensing authority and the local authority itself.
 The local authority can ask for a premises licence for the area on which the market is regularly held. It would specify a premises supervisor, who might be one of the organisers of the market, and who might be renting the land from the local authority. There is a great deal flexibility about who can be the designated premises supervisor, but there must be one. It might be an official or an employee of the council—although I shall try to find out whether there is a specific bar on that. The rules may insist that someone who has nothing to do with the council—such as the person who organises the farmers market—be the designated premises supervisor. 
 There is far more flexibility and freedom under the new provisions than under the present system. There will be a variety of mechanisms by which sales can take place, whereas the present norm is to rely on the good will of local pub landlords. The fact that wine and cider producers sell at farmers markets or countryside fairs is not sufficient reason to exempt them from the need to obtain a personal licence. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire told us, for many wineries or cider presses, farmers markets are the primary source of revenue and it is important that we do not cut that off. However, their circumstances raise worries similar to those faced by other retailers of alcohol. 
 I can now confirm that there is no bar to employees of local authorities becoming designated premises supervisors. I hope that I have given some comfort to those who have expressed concern about farmers markets, and that in the light of my reassurances the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Malcolm Moss: We have had a good debate on the issues addressed in the amendments, and I congratulate the Minister on his positive response to many of our questions. We have had assurances that he will go away and think about certain points, which is welcome, and his explanation of the position of farmers markets will be helpful in reassuring those who have approached him, and other hon. Members, that the possibilities under the Bill may be greater than they have hitherto enjoyed. The debate has cleared the air and clarified the Government's position most satisfactorily, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question agreed to. 
 Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: Before we proceed, I must tell the Committee that the clause that we have just considered was extremely complex and covered a wide range of issues. For that reason, I allowed a great deal of latitude in the discussion. We have a considerable amount of work to complete before the guillotine falls at 5 o'clock next Tuesday evening, so we have to make considerable progress. Clauses 99 to 101, although important, are relatively straightforward, and I hope that hon. Members will accept that I do not propose to allow the same latitude that I gave under clause 98 in debate on these clauses.
 I should also point out to hon. Members that as Chairman, I have to take cognisance both of the welfare of the Officers of the House and of the fact that some Members need to sign and deliver post for collection prior to the new cut-off time of 6 o'clock. Therefore, I am prepared to allow the Committee to sit until 5.15 pm. It is entirely up to the members of the Committee whether they wish to sit later than that, but if they do, I shall suspend the Committee at 5.15 and reconvene it an hour later.

Clause 99 - Minimum of 24 hours between event periods

Mark Hoban: I beg to move amendment No. 342, in
clause 99, page 56, line 32, leave out 'the whole or'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 419, in
clause 99, page 56, line 33, leave out 'any part' and insert 
 'the majority, as measured by area,'.

Mark Hoban: I want to probe the nature of the 24-hour gap between temporary event notices, and to
 highlight, through the amendment, my concern about what may happen when there are two temporary event notices for the same premises. I can understand that in very small premises, such as one-room community halls, one would not want back-to-back temporary event notices; however, I am mindful of locations such as secondary schools that have large grounds and may have buildings dotted across them. An example that springs to mind is Brookfield community school in my constituency. It has a sports hall at one end of the grounds and a music performance facility at the other, and both could be used for temporary events.
 This morning we touched briefly on the nature of premises, and how premises could be defined. We were talking about the location of marquees, and were determining what and where premises could be. Will we ensure that sensible guidance is given to local authorities so that schools, or other places where the premises used are sufficiently far apart, do not fall within the provisions? Also, can we make sure that different parts of premises can be covered by different temporary events notices, and that those notices will not cancel each other out because they are less than 24 hours apart?

Nick Harvey: May I ask the Minister for guidance on the meaning of subsection (1)(b)? I presume that the objective of clause 99 is to prevent organisers of an event from doing what the hon. Member for Selby described this morning, and putting back-to-back applications together to get it to run for longer. However, if I understand the subsection correctly, it would prevent two different events held by different organisations from going back-to-back. To come back to the village hall that we have been discussing all day, it seems that if someone were having a 21st birthday party on a Saturday night, it would be impossible for someone else in the village to celebrate their 90th birthday at lunchtime on the Sunday. It would be regrettable to take such a large club to such a small issue; the Government may be using disproportionate control.

Roger Gale: Order. The issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised might more properly be discussed in a clause stand part debate, but although I wanted to avoid that, I am prepared to allow the Minister to respond to that point in due course.

Andrew Turner: I do not think that my amendment needs further explanation.

Kim Howells: I can certainly give the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) an assurance that we will issue clear and sensible guidance to licensing authorities. Amendment No. 342 would delete the words ''the whole or'', but I cannot believe that the hon. Gentleman intends that, when a temporary event notice is given in respect of premises the whole of which form part of premises for which another temporary event notice has been given, the two notices should not be considered to apply to the same premises. That would be contrary to common sense.
 If the words ''the whole or'' are deleted, it will not be clear that in those circumstances the two notices will be in respect of the same premises for the purposes of the requirement for a minimum period under clause 99. It is not the case that ''any part of'' will necessarily include ''the whole''. I know that the details are difficult; I found them difficult when I considered the amendment and tried to understand it.

Mark Hoban: I sympathise with the Minister's plight. I tabled the amendment last week, but having looked at it this afternoon, I am not entirely sure that it would achieve what I was trying to achieve.

Kim Howells: Perhaps I should go on to amendment No. 419, which would replace ''any part'' with
''the majority, as measured by area''.
 I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight would take my point that in many cases, that would impose the most unenviable of burdens on the person giving the temporary event notice. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not envisage the person who is giving the notice going down on his hands and knees with a tape measure trying to figure out the exact proportions of the area to which the temporary event notice relates. Even if that were his intention, the criteria under clause 99 are designed, notwithstanding the technical terms in which they are framed, to offer a simple test and, more importantly, a simple safeguard against people taking unfair advantage of the very light touch system that the Bill introduces.

Andrew Turner: I did not intend people to crawl around and measure the area—after all, I accept that during Cowes week the area in question may change its shape, depending on the state of the tide. However, I am concerned about the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, and about the definition of ''premises''. The Minister said that that was up to the local authority, but the definition for the purpose of giving a notice should be clearer. Is a ''place'' something about which either the applicant or the local authority can be clear? For example, is the university of Oxford a ''place''? It is an institution; it covers an area. Indeed, it covers many areas, some of which contiguous and some non-contiguous, but is it a place?

Kim Howells: It certainly is not. I want to make the position clear, so let us suppose that the august university of Warwick, with its clearly defined campus, wanted to put on a great festival. Presumably the university would put in its application for that entire area to have a premises licence. In my experience, Warwick has several premises licences, but they are for specific bars in different buildings on the campus.
 In the case of Oxford university, I imagine that such matters would be even more complicated. I do not know the specific details about Oxford, but I assume that the premises licences there relate to the bars and buildings throughout the city that form part of the university. Each licence would have to be applied for separately. That is proper, because although a single bar application might look like a nice non-bureaucratic approach, for the people who happen to live close to bars in different parts of the city, it could 
 have different consequences. That is why we have to be specific. 
 I think that we have had enough of tides. For the record, we have discovered via our august Chairman that there is a Goodwin Sands cricket club, but if I go into that I will be straying off the subject. 
 What the hon. Member for North Devon said flummoxed me for a moment. He referred to clause 99(1) and asked what it meant for village halls. Subsection (1) is intended to prevent temporary event notices operating back-to-back on the same premises when given by the same premises user. In other words, I assume that the 18-year-old, or the family of the 18-year-old who give the temporary event notice, would be different from the 90-year-old in the hon. Gentleman's example. As they are not the same individuals or agents or families, they would not be counted as back-to-back events. They would be classed as two separate events.

Nick Harvey: I welcome what the Minister has said, which is what I hoped that he would say, but clause 99(1) states:
''A temporary event notice . . . given by an individual . . . is void if the event period specified in it does not . . . begin at least 24 hours after the event period specified in any other such notice.''
 I welcome the interpretation of the clause that the Minister has given, but if he is confident and right in that meaning, what does ''any other such notice'' comprise?

Kim Howells: That is a good point and I give an undertaking to the hon. Gentleman that I will look at the wording.

Mark Hoban: I am conscious of your stricture about using debate on the amendment as a stand part debate, Mr. Gale, but the hon. Member for North Devon mentioned something about which I was equally concerned and tried to table an amendment. That is, what happens if a person has a licensable activity under clause 98(5)(c) that could last an hour but for some reason he decides to put in a temporary event notice for 72 hours? The 24-hour gap is from the end of one temporary event notice to another and not between the times during which that licensable activity will take place, so there could be a long void period because someone has been greedy in the time that they put down for the event period. I would like clarification that the guidance that will be issued will say that the temporary event notice should only be for the duration of the licensable activity itself, not necessarily for 72 hours for the sake of it.

Kim Howells: Yes, the notice would have to be very specific about why 72 hours are required. The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that there would have to be careful management to ensure that people are not greedily gobbling up the time that could be used by someone else, especially at popular times of the year—in the case of weddings, for example.
 I can tell the hon. Gentleman that if different temporary event notices for five hours and 72 hours are applied for by different people, the 24-hour gap, as I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for North 
 Devon, is not the gap we are talking about in terms of the same person, or the agents of the same person, or whatever, applying for two temporary event notices back to back.

Andrew Turner: The Minister has just referred again to the agents, but on this occasion he referred to the agents of the same person, whereas previously he referred to the premises users, the agents or the families.

Kim Howells: There is a specific definition of who those people are. I use the term ''agent'' because I have been reliably informed by no lesser people than lawyers that ''agent'' can refer to a huge range of individuals associated with a particular individual. I use it as shorthand. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for that.

Andrew Turner: Indeed I do. I merely wanted to ascertain that an agent can act on behalf of a number of different premises users without more rapidly using up his chances—the number of notices he can serve.

Kim Howells: I am certainly not saying that. I do not want to generate a new industry in agents for booking temporary event notices. On the contrary, temporary event notices are designed specifically to help those organisations that need them. In general, their concerns are handled not by agents but by the organisations themselves.

Mark Hoban: I think that we are still on amendment No. 342.

Roger Gale: Yes.

Mark Hoban: I understand the Minister's point about premises: just because one has a set of grounds it does not mean that everything within those grounds constitutes one premises and the regulations that the Department will issue will cover that. I now understand that when we are talking about the 24-hour period between temporary event notices it applies only if the same person has applied for both notices. That answers the question of the hon. Member for North Devon, whose point was related to mine. I am grateful for the Minister's clarification on both issues. I am afraid that a non-controversial amendment has taken longer to discuss than we thought, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 384, in
clause 99, page 56, line 41, after 'person', insert— 
 '( ) an acquaintance, colleague or friend of that person'.
 Subsection (3) deals with the definition of an associate of the individual who has applied for the temporary event notice. It is pretty much Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all if they are related in any way to that individual. I presume that the provision is included to prevent anyone who could be influenced by that individual sticking in additional temporary event notices to pad the thing out over a period of time. 
 I accept that in some circumstances members of a family can influence each other, but it is just as easy for someone to influence a friend or colleague. I have 
 tabled the amendment to ask why the provision is limited to family members rather than extended beyond that. I recognise the difficulties in extending it, but I am puzzled as to why the list, although fairly definitive, is confined to family relationships. It is a probing amendment.

Andrew Turner: I support the amendment and ask the Minister whether there might have been a better way of putting the subsection. This issue arises in a number of areas, such as planning law where friends sit on planning committees. There may be no financial interest or reward, but there is a relationship, although not one as close as that specified in the clause. It might have been better for the clause simply to require a statement that the application was not made under the influence of the other applicant. Without such a clause, I support the amendment.

Kim Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his helpful suggestion. He will not be offended if I say that I shall not take it up.
 Clause 99(2)(b) states that 
''a temporary event notice given by an individual who is an associate of the relevant premises user is to be treated as a notice given by the relevant premises user''.
 Subsection (3) defines an associate as 
''the spouse of that person . . . a child, parent, grandchild, grandparent, brother or sister of that person . . . an agent or employee of that person, or . . . the spouse of a person within paragraph (b) or (c).''
 Amendment No. 384 would add to the list of associated persons 
''an acquaintance, colleague or friend''
 of the person who gives the notice. I hope that I can avoid detaining the Committee too long. Perhaps it will be helpful if I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the use of the word ''agent'' in clause 99(3)(c) signifies anyone acting on behalf of the premises user. That could cover an acquaintance, colleague or friend if they were acting in that capacity. The mere fact that someone is an acquaintance of a premises user, but does not otherwise act on behalf of that individual, should not make the person an associate of the individual. We should not prevent an acquaintance from acting independently. In certain villages and towns and in the whole of Wales, everyone seems to know everyone. If we were not specific on that point, the number of people who could apply for temporary event notices would be restricted.

Malcolm Moss: I am more than satisfied with that explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 100 - Acknowledgement of notice

Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 385, in
clause 100, page 57, line 5, leave out 'first' and insert 'second'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 386, in 
clause 100, page 57, line 8, leave out 'second' and insert 'third'.

Malcolm Moss: These amendments are designed to probe why the Government believe that the notice must be returned within the first working day to the individual serving the notice on the licensing authority.

Kim Howells: Part 5 of the Bill provides for a system whereby licensable activities can be carried on under the authority of temporary event notices. That system allows individuals to use premises for licensable activities in certain circumstances without obtaining a premises licence or club premises certificate.
 The amendments fail to recognise the importance of the tight time scales that we have discussed at length today and could discuss next Tuesday. These are crucial to the operation of the temporary event notice arrangements. The amendments would add one working day to the period under clause 100 that is allowed for a licensing authority to acknowledge receipt of a temporary event notice. 
 The period in the Bill is not unreasonable. If a temporary event notice is received in duplicate with the morning post on a Tuesday, an acknowledgement must be sent by the end of Wednesday. The licensing authority has only to stamp one of the duplicate copies and send it to the premises user's address. The time scale for that task is not unrealistic. If the temporary event notice is received on a Saturday, it need not be acknowledged until the following Tuesday. Again, that is entirely reasonable. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that explanation and withdraw the amendment.

Malcolm Moss: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Roger Gale: I am prepared to take amendment No. 372 to clause 101 if it is dealt with reasonably swiftly.

Malcolm Moss: If you insist, Mr. Gale.

Roger Gale: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am entirely in the hands of the Committee. If the usual channels should choose to move that the Committee do now adjourn, I would allow such a motion.
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 13 May at five minutes to Nine o'clock.